Обсуждение: Use of 8192 as BLCKSZ in xlog.c

In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are 
declarations like:

char        buf[8192];

It seems to me that these should be:

char        buf[BLCKSZ];

- or have I misunderstood what is going on here?

I realize that it's probably not terribly significant, as most people 
will do development with BLCKSZ=8192 anyway - I'm just trying to 
understand the code ... :-).

regards

Mark

"Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote
> In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are declarations 
> like:
>
> char        buf[8192];
>
> It seems to me that these should be:
>
> char        buf[BLCKSZ];
>

Those two 8192 have nothing to do with BLCKSZ, it is just an arbitrary 
buffer size as long as it is big enough to hold debug information.

Regards,
Qingqing 

On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:44 , Qingqing Zhou wrote:

>
> "Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote
>> In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are  
>> declarations
>> like:
>>
>> char        buf[8192];
>>
> Those two 8192 have nothing to do with BLCKSZ, it is just an arbitrary
> buffer size as long as it is big enough to hold debug information.

Would it make sense to abstract that out so it's clear that it's  
*not* related to BLCKSZ? Or maybe just a comment would be enough.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Michael Glaesemann wrote:

>
> Would it make sense to abstract that out so it's clear that it's
> *not* related to BLCKSZ? Or maybe just a comment would be enough.
>

"Insprite of incremental improvement", I think rename "buf" to "str" would
work,

Regards,
Qingqing

Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> "Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote
> 
>>In two of the sections covered by #ifdef WAL_DEBUG there are declarations 
>>like:
>>
>>char        buf[8192];
>
> 
> 
> Those two 8192 have nothing to do with BLCKSZ, it is just an arbitrary 
> buffer size as long as it is big enough to hold debug information.
> 

Thanks - of course, different sort of buffer!

It is a bit more obvious now that I'm running with WAL_DEBUG enabled, 
and can see that nature of the output. As has been suggested, maybe a 
comment about the size and nature of 'buf' might be a nice addition.

cheers

Mark